Windows have become the central element of the now ubiquitous graphical interfaces dominating virtually every user's computer experience. Based on a paper metaphor, they permit users intuitively to switch amongst active computer programs, documents and tasks. Yet every user is familiar with the limitations of prior windows interfaces stemming from the confusion which often results from having too many windows open within the limited display space of computer monitors, and the constant resizing and repositioning required to organize the display of multiple windows. It is a purpose of the present invention to offer an improved method of displaying windows that frees the user from such confusion, and minimize the number of user interactions required to organize a computer display.
Users often have more than one window open at a time. Each window can be moved and resized. They can also be placed on top of one another. This makes windows extremely useful since they allow programs and users to organize everything on the screen visually. The repositioning and resizing of windows allows users to give prominence to active computer files, while leaving inactive files accessible.
Windows are a useful metaphor permitting users simultaneous access to several computer documents or functions. However, multiple window schemes of the prior art suffer from certain well-known limitations. Namely, the utility of the prior art windowing are wasteful of the limited display space ("screen real estate") available within a computer's display, and fail to enable users adequately to switch amongst the contents of multiple windows. Specifically, in the prior art, windows are lost when other windows cover them up. The user has no convenient way of knowing that a window is "under" another window. Functions for the automatic arrangement of windows such as tiling (FIG. 1) and cascading (FIG. 2) waste screen real estate. As at least one commentator has noted, "Leaving an edge of one application's rectangle peeking out from behind the active window is an egregious waste of precious pixels." (ALAN COOPER, ABOUT FACE 70 (August 1995)). When multiple windows need to be fully accessed, screen space is between them is wasted unless the user takes the time and effort to resize them manually. And lastly, the prior art offers the user no convenient method of switching quickly amongst multiple windows.
For the purposes of explaining the advantages of the present invention, we now offer a more detailed description of the shortcomings of prior art windowing systems. In the prior art, various attempts have been made to address individual aspects of the multiple window management and screen real estate, but none offers a single straightforward solution.
Window Arrangement Commands. The prior art offers users various automatic window location and sizing options to clean up windows into specific, predefined arrangements, such as the common tiling arrangements (FIG. 1) and cascading arrangements of the prior art (FIG. 2). Tiled windows are automatically laid out so that the edges of windows abut each other and screen space is divided up. This method solves the problem of lost windows, at the expense of functional room within the tiled windows, and screen real estate. No more than a few windows can be evenly tiled before none are accorded enough screen space to be useful. Cascading commands (FIG. 2) permit users to find a window that was lost and uniformly arrange windows, but they require users to reposition and resize all of their windows in order to find just one, and waste screen real estate by including non-useful edges of windows within the display.
Tabbed Windows. In their basic form, tabbed windows enable users to switch amongst multiple windows quickly (FIG. 3). However, only one of the tabbed windows can be displayed at a time. An extended implementation of tabbed windows implemented in computer programs such as PhotoShop.TM. by Adobe, allows the tabs to be dragged out of the containing window and expand into the window corresponding to the tab. But this just leads to the same problems inherent in any overlapping windows scheme.
Magnetic Windows. Magnetic windows address the problem of wasted screen space between fully displayed windows. When the edge of one window is dragged close to another, the window being moved "snaps" to the edge of the stationary window (FIG. 4). This is useful if the windows are not already next to each other, but fails when windows that are next to each other need to be resized. Magnetic windows can be seen in several programs such as Adobe PhotoShop 4.0.
Splitter Windows. Splitter windows allow two windows to be resized at once by assigning them to a mutual edge (FIG. 5). This works well so long as the number of windows remains low and the windows do not need to be relocated. Docking windows, a variant upon splitter windows, can be detached to become like a regular window and then later re-attached. All of these schemes require separate user steps to size and position separate windows, and do not adequately function to conserve screen real estate.
Task Bars. Task bars, such as the Start bar in Microsoft's Windows.TM. 95 interface, and other window switching commands and menus list all the open windows and allow the user to activate one by clicking on it (FIG. 6). This solves the problem of losing windows, but dose not assist users wishing to view the full contents of multiple windows simultaneously.